• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Graeme MacQueen Debunks Mackey & Roberts

RedIbis said:
Uh, an associate professor is a professor. An associate professor can even be tenured. But to say MacQueen was not a professor because he was not a "full" professor, whatever that is, is ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Maybe where you live. But in Canada - which is where McMaster University is located - there is a difference between an "associate professor" and a professor. They are separate academic rankings. An associate professor is not a full professor here. The term "full professor" (which you seem to be unfamiliar with) is common here, and refers to one who has full professorship status, i.e., beyond that of an assistant professor or an associate professor. Feel free to look at reports by Statistics Canada which demonstrate this quite clearly if you still think that it is "ridiculous" for me to have commented on a very real distinction of which you were, apparently, unaware.
 
Last edited:
LashL said:
Maybe where you live. But in Canada - which is where McMaster University is located - there is a difference between an "associate professor" and a professor. An associate professor is not a full professor here. The term "full professor" (which you seem to be unfamiliar with) is common here, and refers to one who has full professorship status, i.e., beyond that of an assistant professor or an associate professor. Feel free to look at reports by Statistics Canada which demonstrate this quite clearly if you still think that it is "ridiculous" for me to have commented on a very real distinction of which you were, apparently, unaware.
Click to expand...

I didn't say that an associate professor is a full professor. You said an associate professor isn't a professor. Tell that to the long lists of associate professors as McMaster U.
 
RedIbis said:
I didn't say that an associate professor is a full professor.
Click to expand...

No, you established that you don't even know what a full professor is and insinuated that such a thing does not even exist. It does.

RedIbis said:
You said an associate professor isn't a professor.
Click to expand...

I said that MacQueen was not a professor but an associate professor of religious studies, and added that he was never a full professor. Because it's true.

There is a difference between an associate professor and a professor, the latter being a "full professor", the former not having that status. These are separate academic rankings.

And, as I already explained above, the term "full professor" has meaning here, even though you appear to be unaware of it.


RedIbis said:
Tell that to the long lists of associate professors as McMaster U.
Click to expand...


I don't have to. They - more than anyone - already know that "professor" and "associate professor" are distinct academic rankings. Associate professors are afforded the courtesy of being addressed as "Professor Smith" (for instance), but associate professors have not attained the distinct academic ranking of professors until they become full professors.
 
LashL said:
No, you established that you don't even know what a full professor is and insinuated that such a thing does not even exist. It does.



I said that MacQueen was not a professor but an associate professor of religious studies, and added that he was never a full professor. Because it's true.

There is a difference between an associate professor and a professor, the latter being a "full professor", the former not having that status. These are separate academic rankings.

And, as I already explained above, the term "full professor" has meaning here, even though you appear to be unaware of it.





I don't have to. They - more than anyone - already know that "professor" and "associate professor" are distinct academic rankings. Associate professors are afforded the courtesy of being addressed as "Professor Smith" (for instance), but associate professors have not attained the distinct academic ranking of professors until they become full professors.
Click to expand...

MacQueen's article has nothing to do with religion, nor what his religion is, nor what kind of a professor he is.

You are attacking a straw man. You fear the facts marshalled by MacQueen in his powerful tour de force.
 
Galileo said:
What's your evidence that they haven't? What's your evidence they've ever heard of MacQueen?
Click to expand...

You're right in the respect that the FDNY might never have heard of MacQueen or this paper. Those members he quotes from the oral histories do know what their statements say. In the aftermath of 9/11 why hasn't one single member of the FDNY come out in support of a CD of the WTC? Why isn't their union demanding a new investigation? The union recently declared a cover-up in the investigation of the deaths of two firefighters in the Deutsche Bank building fire (at Ground Zero). Why are they ignoring 9/11?
 
Galileo said:
MacQueen's article has nothing to do with religion, nor what his religion is, nor what kind of a professor he is.

You are attacking a straw man. You fear the facts marshalled by MacQueen in his powerful tour de force.
Click to expand...

That MacQueen is educated in religion is relevant only in that that is his only claim to credibility and thus, his sole area of credibility does not qualify him to address fire science. As I pointed out, he does not even check to see whether any of the statements contradict each other, as do Ondrovic's and Deshore's.
 
Galileo said:
What's your evidence that they haven't? What's your evidence they've ever heard of MacQueen?
Click to expand...

What's your evidence that they support him? Why didn't MacQueen interview any firefighter?
 
Last edited:
Galileo said:
The BBC program comes out on Sunday, so I thought I'd get a leg up and post this here:

Waiting for Seven: WTC 7 Collapse Warnings in the FDNY Oral Histories
Prof. Graeme MacQueen
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200701/MacQueenWaitingforSeven.pdf

This is a great article. It totally debunks the idea put out by MacKey and Roberts that the WTC 7 foreknowledge was a rational thing for the firemen because of all the fire and debris damage.

This article shows that only 7 firemen actually made observations that they thought WTC 7 would fall, while 50 "were told" it would fall. These 7 firemen sound very confused and paranoid, and contradict NIST, who still doesn't know why WTC 7 fell seven years later.

MacQueen also finds that a majority of the firemen "definitely" thought WTC 7 would fall. Really, they knew definitely?

16 thought WTC 7 would fall more than 2 hours before it did, while 6 thought it would fall more than 4 hours before it did. Wow!

None of this makes any sense at all, unless it were a controlled demolition, with a cover story being put out by Giuliani's office and/or some "engineering type person".

:jaw-dropp
Click to expand...

Galileo,
Your great great grand uncle would be ashamed of this "research". You can dress a sow up in silk pantaloons, but it's still a sow. Just because he uses sciencey words, you expect people to accept this leaping-to-conclusions confirmation biased approach to "research".
The main contention... whether they were told (by engineers and other experts and their higher-ups) or deduced that the building was coming down is just nonsense. He even quotes one who got the word from someone else, who then says something to the effect that he looked up and could see that that was correct. (This was re 1 & 2.)

Gee, in the rush to save lives and stuff, they weren't all looking up and trying to decide if the building was coming down? They were doing a job, and even some of the batallion chiefs were relying on what they'd been told for years,... that the buildings would hold up. In such a case, you find it illogical or inconsistant that they'd need a forceful outside/professional opinion to change that pre-set view?

This rates right up there with the blueprints that weren't as earth-shattering rebuttal.
 
Galileo said:
MacQueen's article has nothing to do with religion, nor what his religion is, nor what kind of a professor he is.

You are attacking a straw man. You fear the facts marshalled by MacQueen in his powerful tour de force.
Click to expand...


Your post has absolutely nothing to do with mine, and has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion that RedIbis and I were having. It appears that you are as incapable as RedIbis of comprehending the straightforward facts that I set out in my prior post to which you purported to respond - and to which you failed miserably to actually respond. Hint: clicking the 'quote' button and posting arrant nonsense does not = a meaningful response.


The only one battling a strawman here is you. I'd suggest you leave the poor thing alone. You've been abusing the poor creature for far, far too long already.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom